The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
Yeah, the idea that someone would call into question the citizenship of the son of a member of our armed forces because he was born in a foreign country, where his father was serving is a disgrace.
The international civil and political rights organization known as AXJ asks why the Supreme Court will not review this matter. Is it up to the Electoral College and the WE THE PEOPLE Foundation? http://www.axjus.com
Awwwwwwww, you've had a visit from a birther, Greg. Aren't they just so cute, in a straight-jacket-and-medicate-them-into-a-comatose-silence, sorta way?
To AJX and other loons. It's not up to anybody. It means that avenue of inquiry is closed and Obama will be president. The electoral college will elect him and we the people will have a party on 20 Jan 09 to boot out the lying, stupid shrub and welcome in Obama.
Obama insists he hasnt abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the lefts bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he wont enact the tax.
Obamas pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now hes struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling hell merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obamas post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obamas says that on his first day in office he will begin to design a plan for a responsible drawdown, as he told NBCs Meet the Press Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bushs defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the lefts criticism is direct dont bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet, writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?
@Joel -- I hope you're not saying that anyone here was pushing that nonsense about McCain. If so, post incriminating links; I like to think anyplace I hang around is more rational than that.
Wait, British now? I thought they said he was Kenyan by birth? Wait, when did Kenya become independent? 1960-something? That works. Ack! I can't keep my loons in order!
@Rob W - Nah, not saying that. It was aimed at this part of the story...Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
Briefly: The first naturalization law passed in the U.S., in 1790, explicitly stated that the child of a U.S. citizen was a natural-born citizen even if born overseas. The Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words "natural-born" but reiterated that children of U.S. citizens born overseas were still citizens. According to one referenced source in the Wiki article, the State Department honors the 1790 language.
According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, it has never been definitively determined by the courts whether an overseas-born citizen is "natural-born", because that term is not fully defined:
So, current U.S. law neither explicitly permits nor explicitly forbids people who were born overseas but were U.S. citizens at birth from being elected to the presidency.
It was that booger twirling, hateful little Uncle Tom Justice
Clarence T. that pushed the suit across the desks of the others.
And, if anything, I would thing the Dems would be more offended that the suit accused him of being British.
So which of the birth certificates that McCain provided was the forgery? Was it the one that said he was born in a hospital that wasn't built until 20 years later? Or was it the one that replaced it when that was pointed out, that says he was born outside the Canal Zone in Colo�n?
Presumably McCain or his staffers were told the same thing I was all through school, that unlike every other office, to be President you had to have been physically born in the US or its possessions. So I'm assuming the second one was authentic, and they publicized it when it was pointed out they didn't need the first one. ("What did you need with the Hotel Bristol, anyway?")
McCain was qualified (on citizenship grounds, if in no other way) to be President. On grounds of providing forged documents to prove it, not so much.
It would be interesting to know if any of these Obama Birthers were among the nuts who wanted to amend the constitution so Schwarzenegger could run for president....
Not trying to be a party pooper here (also, this thread seems kinda lukewarm) but doesn't the Constitution explicitly restrict the "natural-born" clause only to the president-elect "at the time of the adoption of this constitution", that is, to George Washington, and none after?
Yeah, the idea that someone would call into question the citizenship of the son of a member of our armed forces because he was born in a foreign country, where his father was serving is a disgrace.
Oh, that Obama thing is pretty stupid too.
Shortly after the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the battle of the sexes end.
1. AXJ Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 7:43 am
The international civil and political rights organization known as AXJ asks why the Supreme Court will not review this matter. Is it up to the Electoral College and the WE THE PEOPLE Foundation? http://www.axjus.com
Awwwwwwww, you've had a visit from a birther, Greg. Aren't they just so cute, in a straight-jacket-and-medicate-them-into-a-comatose-silence, sorta way?
To AJX and other loons. It's not up to anybody. It means that avenue of inquiry is closed and Obama will be president. The electoral college will elect him and we the people will have a party on 20 Jan 09 to boot out the lying, stupid shrub and welcome in Obama.
And what are we welcoming?
Obama insists he hasnt abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the lefts bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he wont enact the tax.
Obamas pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now hes struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling hell merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obamas post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obamas says that on his first day in office he will begin to design a plan for a responsible drawdown, as he told NBCs Meet the Press Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bushs defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the lefts criticism is direct dont bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet, writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292
Seems he's forgetting everything that got him elected. I don't feel so bad that he's abandoning the LGBT community.
@Joel -- I hope you're not saying that anyone here was pushing that nonsense about McCain. If so, post incriminating links; I like to think anyplace I hang around is more rational than that.
Wait, British now? I thought they said he was Kenyan by birth? Wait, when did Kenya become independent? 1960-something? That works. Ack! I can't keep my loons in order!
http://www.gon2foto.com/gallery/albums/Birds/Common_Loons_B9H0196_Icela…
"I DEMAND THE TRUTH!"
ajus
"You can't handle the truth"
Jack Nicholson
@Rob W - Nah, not saying that. It was aimed at this part of the story...Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
Incidentally, Wikipedia has an article on this subject; maybe someone here with credentials in law can comment on its accuracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Briefly: The first naturalization law passed in the U.S., in 1790, explicitly stated that the child of a U.S. citizen was a natural-born citizen even if born overseas. The Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words "natural-born" but reiterated that children of U.S. citizens born overseas were still citizens. According to one referenced source in the Wiki article, the State Department honors the 1790 language.
According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, it has never been definitively determined by the courts whether an overseas-born citizen is "natural-born", because that term is not fully defined:
Volumehttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
So, current U.S. law neither explicitly permits nor explicitly forbids people who were born overseas but were U.S. citizens at birth from being elected to the presidency.
It depends on where you put the implied comma/hyphen.
Natural, born-citizen. (preferably a vegetarian)
Natural-born citizen (not of cesarian birth. Test tube babies stay away.)
It was that booger twirling, hateful little Uncle Tom Justice
Clarence T. that pushed the suit across the desks of the others.
And, if anything, I would thing the Dems would be more offended that the suit accused him of being British.
Would it count if the candidate was "born again" in the US? Religion has to be good for something.
So which of the birth certificates that McCain provided was the forgery? Was it the one that said he was born in a hospital that wasn't built until 20 years later? Or was it the one that replaced it when that was pointed out, that says he was born outside the Canal Zone in Colo�n?
Presumably McCain or his staffers were told the same thing I was all through school, that unlike every other office, to be President you had to have been physically born in the US or its possessions. So I'm assuming the second one was authentic, and they publicized it when it was pointed out they didn't need the first one. ("What did you need with the Hotel Bristol, anyway?")
McCain was qualified (on citizenship grounds, if in no other way) to be President. On grounds of providing forged documents to prove it, not so much.
It would be interesting to know if any of these Obama Birthers were among the nuts who wanted to amend the constitution so Schwarzenegger could run for president....
Not trying to be a party pooper here (also, this thread seems kinda lukewarm) but doesn't the Constitution explicitly restrict the "natural-born" clause only to the president-elect "at the time of the adoption of this constitution", that is, to George Washington, and none after?